Bush Lied. Thousands Died. We simply cannot allow neocon denial to rewrite history.

Bush Lies

This is well-trodden ground and I honestly thought that Bush's dishonesty was a settled historical fact by now.  But as the years pass between the events of 2002-2003 and the case for war becomes fuzzy in many American's minds, as the horrors of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq settle into a nightmarish mist where moral responsibility floats owner-less, as though the war were an inevitable natural disaster rather than an elective, man-made catastrophe, neocon denial, like Holocaust denial, can become an option for many, especially those most embarrassed by this debacle.
But history matters.  Moral culpability matters.  There are no statutes of limitation on lying or mass murder. If we don't hold our past leaders accountable for what they did, then present leaders know they can act with impunity. This issue transcends party. It even transcends nationality. All countries need to clean house morally, examining motives and deceptions.
Lying is a strong word for some but if a person or administration consistently and repeatedly, despite multiple public and private corrections, presents a case for a war that it knows is not true, with the errors systematically in the direction for war, with a vindictive response to public correction that ruins careers and compromises national security, then we must use the L word.
What follows is a document I created sometime in 2003 when most of these events were fresh in our minds. It is long and I apologize for that, but the voluminous details make an overwhelming case that Bush and other top members of his administration did indeed lie. I had long since left the intelligence community and had access to only open source information, but I knew, in real time, that there were no WMD in Iraq, certainly no nuclear program, as Bush repeatedly stated there was.  The idea that we did not know then what we know now is simply not true, because many of us, including the tens of millions who marched worldwide - the first and most massive protest in human history to a war that had not even started - knew in real time that George W. Bush was lying, systematically and always in the direction of war.

George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. His Iraq lies have loomed largest. In the run-up to the invasion, Bush based his case for war on a variety of unfounded claims that extended far beyond his controversial uranium-from-Niger assertion. He maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed "a massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons and was directly "dealing" with Al Qaeda--two suppositions unsupported then (or now) by the available evidence. He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material). Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding.

• David Corn, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception

Lie noun: an untrue statement made with intent to deceive (Merriam-Webster)

To accuse a politician of lying should be a serious charge.

So much deception has been documented by office-holders that the term dishonest politician has become redundant. This is unfair to those who serve with integrity and who are collectively impugned by the well-publicized egregious behavior of a few.

There are several levels of dishonesty, all of which have been displayed by this administration.

The lowest level, and arguably the most forgivable, is lies having to do with personal behavior that does not reflect on the performance of one's duties, and does not affect decisions made by those who hear the falsehood. The sexual life of President Clinton when thrust into a courtroom prompted an emphatic lie from the President "I did not have sex with that woman," although many might argue about whether fellatio constitutes sex, per se. This is at the level of a quibble, a wiggling away from a direct falsehood, but giving information that deliberately creates a false impression.

The most egregious level involves issues of national security, especially when the lies are so designed to inflame passions and lurch the country to war. These involve outright deceptions - the claim that Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa - or deliberately sloppy language that created a false impression unless parsed very carefully - such as Bush's frequent summoning of the memory of 9/11 in the same sentence in which he mentioned Saddam Hussein. The effect of both lies is lethal. Men, women, and children died in the thousands because decision-makers, influenced by these words (indeed, often citing them) - ceded their war-making authority to the President.

Somewhere between these extremes is an intellectual dishonesty, a sloppiness in thinking that may reflect the operation of a dichotomous mind unschooled in the nuances of history, foreign policy, or cultural and ethnic complexity of a region. This good-old-boy, ah-shucks-I-said-that? approach may have been deliberately misused by President Bush as a screen to hide behind, to make his ludicrous conclusions seem almost forgivable to those who support him. Yes, they say, he may have overstated his case about all those pesky weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda and all that, but everyone makes mistakes. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told us, the President is not a fact-checker.

Apparently not.

What follows is a collection of some of the President's most egregious lies. There are unfortunately many others. I have attempted to exclude statements that arguably could have been simple errors of fact or judgment, which any leader under pressure will inevitably make. If the mistake is made in good faith and the consequences are not disastrous, then the leader should be forgiven. But if the weight of evidence was that the inaccuracy was inexcusable (because contemporary information disproved the statement) or seemed intended to deceive, then the inaccuracy is included as a lie.

What Bush said:	The truth:
Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons.	The overwhelming weight of evidence from inspectors was that if he had any weapons they were scant. (Subsequent failure to unearth a single unconventional weapon demonstrates the inspectors' assessment was correct.)
Saddam Hussein was directly "dealing" with al Qaeda .	No such evidence existed or exists. "Combining the techniques of Madison Avenue and of totalitarianism, President George Bush has … endlessly reiterated the names of Saddam and 9/11 together. With a wondrous piece of suggestio falsi, he spoke of Saddam's links with 'al-Qaida-type organisations' (or 'al-Qaida types', or 'a terrorist network like al-Qaida'), and in one speech about Iraq, he mentioned September 11 more than 10 times. As a result of this subliminal persuasion, a majority of Americans now say they believe that Saddam was linked to the attack on New York, a falsehood which even the White House has never dared assert in plain terms." Guardian, 4/21/03
The International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon.	No such report existed. The IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material. Note that President Bush made this statement on television; by the time it was retracted several days later, the public impression of this inaccurate statement had already had its effect.
Saddam Hussein was importing aluminum tubes to reconstitute his nuclear program.	The IAEA stated multiple times that these tubes had been thoroughly examined and exactly matched the dimensions needed for conventional artillery munitions (allowed by the cease fire accords). President Bush repeated his incorrect statement in a later televised addressed AFTER the IAEA corrected his earlier inaccuracy.
Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium in Niger.	He initially cited what was dismissed by the intelligence community as a fraudulent letter. He later cited British intelligence. That British intelligence has never been shared with the Americans or the British. "In October, [2003], acting on Tenet's suggestion, Bush excised a sentence about Iraq seeking a specific quantity of uranium from Niger, Fleischer said. Yet, several months later, Bush went ahead and raised the claim about seeking uranium in Africa." - CNN, 7/15/03
Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."	No one who heard this speech doubted the President was referring to nuclear weapons, by far "the most lethal weapons ever devised." Note this is more than a desire, more than an inchoate program; President Bush said Saddam Hussein "possess[es]" the weapons and was hiding them.
Saddam Hussein "wouldn't let" U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq. (State of the Union Speech).	In fact, the inspectors were in the country in the months before the war. - CNN, 07/15/2003
"We found the weapons of mass destruction."	Perhaps one of his most famous mis-statements, made on Polish television after the war. Arguably the most forgivable (every report of chemical weapons "finds" were later shown to be false), it is still curious why the President would issue a statement on such an important issue at such a critical time (attempting to enlist more Polish support for the occupation) without allowing his "fact-checkers" to vet the story.
"The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."	Actually 42.6% of the initial $1.6 trillion package would go to the top 1% of earners; only 12.6% would go to the entire bottome 60%.
A single mother of 2 children supporting 2 children would experience a 100% pay cut.	Actually, such a woman would have not tax liability prior to the tax cut.
"The greatest percentage of tax relief goes to the people at the bottom end of the ladder."	The greatest proportion of the tax cut (42.6%) goes to the top 1%; here, Bush is using the "percentage" to refer to the percentage one's taxes are lowered. So a person paying $200 in income taxes who no longer has to pay federal income tax does enjoy a 100% reduction in income taxes, but is this arguably more significant than a millionaire whose $100,000 tax bill is cut by "only" 10%, or $10,000?
The estate tax would "keep family farms in the family."	The New York Times could not find a single family lost because of the estate tax.
"Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money."	This is meaningless average since the distribution was so skewed toward high-earners. Almost half of all taxpayers would received less than a $100 tax reduction. Those in the middle of the range would receive $265. 80% of taxpayers would received less than $1,083.
About arsenic: "At the very last minute my predecessor made a decision, and we pulled back his decision so that we can make a decision based upon sound science and what's realistic."	2 lies: the decision to lower arsenic levels to 10 parts per billion was made after a decade of study, not "at the very last minute"; "sound science" as represented by a 1999 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study indicated the existing standard could create a 1-in-100 cancer risk and recommended lowering levels promptly.
Kyoto had to be abandoned because of "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge" about global warming.	More a quibble than a lie, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted global temperature increases, citing unspecified human contribution of human emissions.
"America was targeted for attack [on 9/11/01] because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world."	Since at least 1998, al Qaeda's motivation for attacking America was clearly its foreign policy not its domestic values. The 3 major criticisms were US support of Israel, sanctions against Iraq, and stationing of Western troops in Saudi Arabia. The attacks were vicious but far from random.
"No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft--fly US aircraft--into buildings full of innocent people."	Actually, he and his senior staff had been briefed several times on just such a scenario.
"We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."	Actually, he resisted creating a special committee to explore what happened, complicated the committee's future at one point by appointing an alleged war criminal (Kissinger), then filed to cooperate fully with the committee until publicly shamed into doing so.
"We're not going to deploy a [missile defense] system that doesn't work."	He did; the system has never tested successfully. Initial tests were such abysmal failures that subsequent tests were classified.
His 8/01 decision to permit federal funding of stem-cell research only for projects that used existing stem-cell lines was softened by his claim that there were sixty existing lines which "allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research."	In reality there were only about 10 lines, insufficient for a promising research effort, and seriously hampering American innovation in critical areas of medical research.
Ariel Sharon is a "partner for peace."	This is a strange statement to make about a man found responsible by his own government for the 1980 Sabra-Shatilla massacres that killed up to 1,800 Palestinians, and a man who has refused to make a single concession on settlements, the security wall, or the right of return of Palestinian refugees in the interest of peace.
Yasser Arafat is "irrelevant."	Yasser Arafat, like Sharon a man with a long history of politically motivated violence, may be many things, but he quite clearly remains (through 9/03) relevant to Palestinian policy. He was elected in 1996 to lead his people, which is of course more than can be said for President Bush.
Bush supports free trade.	In March, 2002, in a move later shot down by the World Trade Organization as a violation of existing free-trade agreements, Bush hiked tariffs on steel imports. He later rescinded many of those hikes, perhaps realizing this drove up the price of everything made with steel by about a third.
"We have assembled a coalition of the willing."	The vast majority of the troops and assets for the Iraq invasion were Anglo-Saxon with token support by a number of other countries, many of whom were granted large cash infusions for signing on. "The Bush team keeps arguing that this silly alliance it cobbled together to fight the war in Iraq is multilateral and therefore the moral equivalent of the U.N. Almost every government in it is operating without the support of its people. Fighting this war without international legitimacy is hard enough, but trying to do nation-building without it could be even harder." Thomas Friedman, NYT, 3/30/03
"I pray for peace."	Said on the eve of war, this strange statement makes it seem as if he had no choice but to attack, as if war was thrust upon him. Was it outright sacrilege? Perhaps. The Pope denounced the war as a "defeat for humanity." Bishop Tutu urged President Bush to "listen to the voice of the people, for many times the voice of the people is the voice of God" to "give peace a chance."
Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the United States to take force against Iraq.	Incorrect. 1441 set up a timetable under which inspectors would be readmitted (they were), Iraq would report the possession of any weapons of mass destruction (they did, accurately as it turned out), then Blix would return to the UNSC who in turn could authorize force in the name of the United Nations if Iraq was deemed in material breach. No individual member state was given authority to attack unilaterally, and Blix indicated on multiple occasions that the Iraqis were surprisingly cooperative.
In response to world-wide protests against his proposed Iraq invasion: "Size of protest it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group… The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security, in this case, the security of the people."	A focus group consists of a small number of representative people. When over ten million people take to the streets worldwide, that pretty much IS the people. The highest support for the war outside of the United States was 14% prior to the invasion. Since the weight of evidence before and after the conflict illustrated that Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to the "security of the people", his equating invading Iraq in the teeth of international outrage was with protecting that security was bogus.
Mr Bush "understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust".	This implies that the most rigorous arms inspection and disarmament regimen in history (that now seemed to have been even more successful than its most ardent supporters believed) is "doing nothing" and that between here and "a holocaust" no opportunity for intervention will present itself.
"Mission Accomplished" (slogan as backdrop to President Bush's 5/1/03 speech on the Abraham Lincoln announcing the triumphant end of major hostilities).	More Americans died since the speech than before it. Saddam Hussein remains at large. The country remains short of security, water, electricity. Many international aid agencies have withdrawn.
"There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong." (Implying that Iraq could also sustain "democratic values."	From the Guardian: " In fact, it is Mr Bush who is wrong. Japanese men got the vote in 1925, not in 1945, as the president implied. And German men won the vote as far back as 1849, albeit subject to a property qualification, at a time when Mr Bush's country practised legalised slavery. Bearing in mind that America only became a full democracy in 1965, and Germany in 1946, there is a case for saying that Germans have at least as strong a democratic tradition as Americans. What's more, there is no dispute about who actually won the last German election, which is more than can be said about the means by which Mr Bush came to office. A little historical humility would do the president no harm."
"a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region"	Conceivably an error in judgement rather than a true lie, this certainly has not (as of 9/03) been true.